Thread: Obama won re election

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Ok, I'll teach. I'm doing so in the spirit of fostering understanding, not to pick on anyone.
Your original statement: "What I find troubling is youth and immigrants without broad historical perspective and fueled by a "Me" "What I want now" attitude..."
Your use of the term "broad historical perspective" may seem all-encompassing, but it lacks clear delineation. It cannot be quantified. It cannot be reliably and validly measured. It cannot be experimentally supported or refuted. What may seem wide-ranging to one may in actuality be a rather limited comprehension and/or application to another.
You further stated that "relativity tips the cart" (or something to that effect, yes?). Relativity means that there is no absolute standard between and among all things. Thus, my statement "broad historical perspective has absolutely no value" is applicable.
My B.S. is in history and psychology. Compared to most saloon patrons, I do possess what you call "broad historical perspective." For example, I can trace the origins and formation of republican political theory to the ancient Greeks. Most people can't. I can detail, describe, and explain the causalities and effects of the Enlightenment on the formation of the United States Constitution. Most people can't do this either. Compared to my father (professor emeritus of history and poly sci), there's no comparison -- he can blow me away quite easily. He's just that good!
I hope this helps you understand my perspective. Again, I did this to help others gain some understanding.
We still pals?

May I ask a question, I am but a mere peon in this land. I have but a couple questions to ask. Do you believe the Electoral College is still as needed and relevant as it was when founded? And, now, with the couple of changes since it's approval; could it be time to change the process? I heard of a silly idea, and I will use a silly state to use for an example; California. The only reason the X candidate comes to the state is for money, he already knows he will lose here, why care about the problem of the people. Candidate Y comes to California for money, they know they have the state won, they don't care about the people, they will win the Electoral vote, why waste time. OK, here's something that wont happen any time soon, what if.... They divided the Electoral vote by percentage of votes garnered. HOLY crap, instead of the vast majority getting the whole egg basket, they gotta divide the eggs!!! Maybe then they will give a rats ass about the crap goin on out here. Can I get a heck yeah!!!

Personally, I would like to see the rules of "Thunderdome" applied. Two men in, one man out. That's how leaders are made!

Originally Posted by donv

Do you believe the Electoral College is still as needed and relevant as it was when founded?

Well, US doesn't have slavery anymore, so the Electoral College is not necessary anymore to artificially rebalance the power between those two sides

Originally Posted by donv

May I ask a question, I am but a mere peon in this land. I have but a couple questions to ask. Do you believe the Electoral College is still as needed and relevant as it was when founded? And, now, with the couple of changes since it's approval; could it be time to change the process?

Short answers: Yes. Yes.

Medium length answers: The Founding Fathers knew that too much democracy would be destructive. In effect, mob rule would be the order of the day in the sense of Roman "barracks emperors." The FF's collectively believed in a "natural aristocracy" based on ability, talent, and learning as a prerequisite to holding office. What the FF's did not anticipate was the rise of political parties which would control the election of the president. In time, the Electors became the voice of the parties.
When one votes for a presidential candidate, one really is voting for an Elector who promises to vote for that candidate. There have been historically documented abuses of the E.C. (ex. the "corrupt bargain" of 1824) and current potential for the same. For instance, in Michigan, there is currently no law requiring Electors to cast their ballots for their constituency's majority choice. Thus, the Elector may override his/her constituency's majority choice.

Long answers: PM me and politely ask for the essay I wrote on this topic as an undergrad. Then wait until I go home to B.C. and find the darn thing as that was over 30 years ago, and I haven't the foggiest idea where it is. Might be in the study...

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, US doesn't have slavery anymore, so the Electoral College is not necessary anymore to artificially rebalance the power between those two sides

Slavery had nothing to do with the creation of the Electoral College. Perhaps you're thinking of the 3/5 compromise?
The E.C. plan that was adopted allows the States to choose the members of the E.C. by whatever measures the State legislatures determine, and the College then elects the President. The Electors theoretically are to be chosen on the basis of their ability to choose wisely the best candidate for President and Vice President. Article 2 (Executive Branch) , Section 2 deals with this directly on point.

Well, the EC is still needed imo. Because without it, noone would care about rural areas. Candidates would only focus on the handful of densely populated areas. The US is still supposed to be a union of states and not a singular country. As such, the EC still plays a role.

I do think the EC vote should be divided proportionally per state so that the 'winner takes all' no longer applies. That alone would go some ways towards making candidates more moderate. But in the end it is up to each state to decide how their EC votes are cast.

Bruno, no candidate cares about rural areas now. When was the last time a presidential candidate went campaigning in Alaska and/or Hawaii?
Answer: never.
BTW, I agree with your 1st paragraph.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Slavery had nothing to do with the creation of the Electoral College. Perhaps you're thinking of the 3/5 compromise?

May be consult again with the historical record
Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a quote of Madison explaining the exact problem.
I.e. slaves were not allowed to vote in the southern states, so popular vote wouldn't give those states enough power. Going through electors solves the problem because the electors won't be slaves, but the weight they carry will be still boosted by the slaves (taken with a 3/5 ratio of course).

The best argument I've heard for doing away with the electoral college is that it would incentivize the states to enfranchise voters, which I think is ultimately better. However, I suspect that there are plenty of people who disagree and even if won't admit it publicly hold the belief that the country is better off if say poorly educated voters do not vote.

As far as candidates ignoring rural areas, that doesn't seem to be happening in the state elections for senators and governors, which are decided by state popular vote. So I don't see what would cause a difference on a national level. There will always be places that are neglected, just like there are now, but overall I think it's better the president of the whole country is elected in more than a dozen states.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Ok, I'll teach. I'm doing so in the spirit of fostering understanding, not to pick on anyone.
Your original statement: "What I find troubling is youth and immigrants without broad historical perspective and fueled by a "Me" "What I want now" attitude..."
Your use of the term "broad historical perspective" may seem all-encompassing, but it lacks clear delineation. It cannot be quantified. It cannot be reliably and validly measured. It cannot be experimentally supported or refuted. What may seem wide-ranging to one may in actuality be a rather limited comprehension and/or application to another.
You further stated that "relativity tips the cart" (or something to that effect, yes?). Relativity means that there is no absolute standard between and among all things. Thus, my statement "broad historical perspective has absolutely no value" is applicable.
My B.S. is in history and psychology. Compared to most saloon patrons, I do possess what you call "broad historical perspective." For example, I can trace the origins and formation of republican political theory to the ancient Greeks. Most people can't. I can detail, describe, and explain the causalities and effects of the Enlightenment on the formation of the United States Constitution. Most people can't do this either. Compared to my father (professor emeritus of history and poly sci), there's no comparison -- he can blow me away quite easily. He's just that good!
I hope this helps you understand my perspective. Again, I did this to help others gain some understanding.
We still pals?

Whoaaaaa I thought my daughter was the only one today studying the Ancient Greeks and all those other ancient worlds. She actually can read, write and translate Ancient Greek and a few other ancient languages (I have trouble with English). She will be spending 4 months in Greece this winter/spring to do something I don't understand. I just pay the school.

Now... I do under stand "Relativity" in the physics sense of the word. I have never seen it applied to politics or history....but I get it.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Slavery had nothing to do with the creation of the Electoral College. Perhaps you're thinking of the 3/5 compromise?
The E.C. plan that was adopted allows the States to choose the members of the E.C. by whatever measures the State legislatures determine, and the College then elects the President. The Electors theoretically are to be chosen on the basis of their ability to choose wisely the best candidate for President and Vice President. Article 2 (Executive Branch) , Section 2 deals with this directly on point.

The EC was put in place as a compromise to the smaller states as was the House. That is the reason to amount of Electors is tied to the House of Representatives. There is NOTHING in Article 2 that says Electors need to be SMART....LOL.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's not entirely true though. Not the installment of a theocracy per se.
But Bush said outright that his views and decisions on stem cell research and abortion and gay marriage etc were driven by his faith.
While not a theocracy per se, that does bring a decidely religious touch to policymaking.

Perhaps, but everyone always has something driving them. Whether it's their views based on their childhood, or negative past experiences, etc. The threat of a theocracy is painted to the "fearing" as if the moderates or majority of one side would like folks to check in with a state sponsored preacher every move they make.

The same fear mongering goes on both ways, whether it's fear mongering that someone is going to come to your house, take all of your guns, and force you to write a book about your support for the atheists, or if it goes the other way (as if someone is going to make you go to nondenominational church and sign a register or go to jail).